Greer may have a point, but I can't really buy her argument. She seems to me to be a bit of a misanthrope, and she apparently finds fault with just about all humans.“It’s no surprise that he came to grief,” Greer told Nine Network television.
“We now have enough respect for lions to be embarrassed if we see someone trying to crack whips at them and wave chairs at them. Jumping all over crocodiles is the same kind of thing.”
That's quite a lumping of disparate viewpoints into one all-encompassing despisal, which suggests that she doesn't like people in general. I, on the other hand, do. So, I happily conclude that Greer is wrong.Greer, an award-winning author, is a frequent critic of personalities like British soccer star David Beckham and social trends like reality television.
In 2003 she criticized J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy for attracting “spaced-out hippies, environmentalists, free-market libertarians, social conservatives, pacifists, new-age theosophists, sexists and racists the world over.”
Irwin may have been foolhardy, but I think he honestly loved his animals and cared about them. I didn't particularly care for his style, but I think Irwin's main goal was education through entertainment, not entertainment as an end in itself. And that is a laudable effort.
And I disagree with Greer's assessment of the ability of Tolkien to appeal to so many different kinds of people. That is a good thing, especially when the author is one as learned as Tolkien. This distinguished gentleman was a scholar, a teacher, and a damn good writer. His works are not to be sneered at, and his fans are not to be derided simply for loving his works.
Since I disagree almost completely with Greer's outlook, I dismiss her argument. Her assessment of Irwin is rubbish.
No comments:
Post a Comment